Tag: 5e

There is no time for other creatures to do 1W4 + 1 round in a row, in which you can use Actions and move as usual.

I wonder what counts in the above quote as "actions", whether it is just your action or bonus actions and reactions. The book seems to use the broad meaning of "action", at least in some cases. Some relevant quotes below:

The "Reactions" section states that reactions are a type of action (PHB page 190):

Certain special abilities, spells and situations allow you to take A special action called reaction,

From the "Bonus Actions" section, which states that bonus promotions are a type of promotion (PHB page 189):

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take An additional action on your turn is called a bonus action,

Also from the area "Bonus Actions":

Everything that deprives you of your ability to take Actions Also prevents you from running a bonus action
However, there is no corresponding section for reactions. However …

From the incapable state (PHB page 290):

An incompetent creature can not take Actions or reactions

And then from the Action Ready (PHB page 193):

Then choose the action You will take in response to this trigger …

Can the caster of time stop Are you still using your bonus promotions and reactions during the suspended time?

For some spells, the caster must make an attack roll to see if the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a magic attack equals your Spell Cast ability modifier + your ability bonus.

So in the case of the Flame Blade, you would use your Magic Modifier + your skill bonus.

There are spells that use a melee attack and are not melee attacks. For example, Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade (SCAG, pp. 142-143) are not dependent on melee combat spell Attack. Instead, you must attack with a melee weapon. It is said:

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must Make a melee attack with a weapon against a creature within range of the spell, otherwise the spell will fail.

This would be different than the spell in question because you are making one Attack with a melee weapon, So you would add your modifier that applies to this weapon (strength or dexterity) and your abilities (if you are familiar with this weapon).

The description of the wizard subclass "Shadow Magic" (XGtE, p. 50) begins with the following paragraph (focus on mine):

You are a creature of the Shadow, for your innate magic comes from Shadowfoel itself. You can trace your ancestry from this place to an entityor maybe you have been exposed to and transformed by his fallen energy.

I can only think of Shadar Kai (MToF, p. 62). Besides, I can not think of any suitable creatures-dark coats or skull lords among those who are not even humanoid, and it's hard to imagine that Meazels (MToF, p. 214) or Skulks (MToF, p. 227) have any offspring.

In the Shadowfell, are there any entities known from 5e or earlier, apart from the Shadar Quay, which are known to reproduce with other humanoids?Or does "unity" contain a perfect idea of ​​the Raven Queen? : D

At least 26 miles deep, with rumors of unexplored caves that are 40 miles deep, though most of the well-known Underdark is within 10 miles of the surface.

According to the D & D 3e Sourcebook Underdark, P.120, begins the deepest point of the Underdark at a depth of ten miles and continues from there:

No place on Toril is as strange and dangerous as the Lowerdark. This level of Underdark ranges from 10 miles below the surface to unfathomable depths and is characterized by a degree of strangeness that would make some surface dwellers crazy.

At this depth it is described that tunnels and passageways become rarer. Since this is the bottom of the Underdark, the typical depth The number of Underdark sites is between 1 and 10 miles below the surface. For example, the city of Menzoberranzan is only 2 miles below surface and is considered part of Upperark.

Deepest places

Shadow-level portals (which would be called shadow-skin in 5e) are said to exist at depths of 15 miles or less. A sea flows 20 miles below the surface (p.123):

The Glimmersea lies 32 km below the bottom of the Sea of ​​Fallen Stars.

Even lower is the city of Genasi at the end of the earth (p.147), although it is not reachable without teleportation and has no direct tunnels:

Located almost 22 miles Below the Nath in Halruaa, Earth's End is not excused for its extra-planar visitors.

Oryndoll, the city of the Loretakers, is just over 42 km deep (p.168).

There is also an abyss under Anauroch, called Lorosfyr, the unbearable Dark OneRumors say they are at least 40 miles deep in certain places (p.160), although it is unexplored.

armor

Unless otherwise stated in the description of an armor, armor must be worn for its magic to work.

[…]

Wonderful objects

The wondrous items include worn items such as boots, belts, cloaks, gloves and various jewelry and decorative items such as amulets, brooches and hoops. Bags, carpets, crystal balls, figures, horns, musical instruments and other objects are also included in this collection category.

If you look at the gauntlets of Ogermacht, the first line says the name of the item:

Wonderful item, unusual (requires voting)

Compare this to the Armor +1 list:

Armor (light, medium or heavy), rare

If the gauntlets were to be treated as armor, they belonged to the category of armor and not to the category of miraculous items.

A vehicle is not a creature.

First of all, a vehicle is not a creature. At best, it is an object. Many spells can deal damage to objects, and the DM can always decide that a given spell deals damage to objects, even though the description does not explicitly state this, because the jurisdiction of the rules is their job.

Whether a vehicle is an object depends on how the DM wants to handle it.

For the purposes of these rules, an object is a discrete, lifeless object such as a window, a door, a sword, a book, a table, a chair or a stone, not a building or a vehicle made up of many other objects.

Thus, a ship is neither an object nor a creature, but consists of many objects, such as the mast, the sails, the rigging, the planks and so on.

This suggests that a spell that affects creatures can not damage a ship, but can damage or destroy certain parts of the ship, such as a ship.

However, on p.119 we have a section on "The Sea" with a table that contains a list of sea and air vehicles, with ACs, total HP values ​​and, in some cases, a damage threshold that eliminates any damage that lies below the amount ,

If the ship has air conditioning and hit points, this should be treated as an object, at least enough for some spells to be a valid target. In this case, the ship suffers substantial damage as a whole unit and does not lose any specific parts or functions until the ship as a whole is defeated and sinks.

What does all this mean?

This means that the DM has some leeway to decide how much abstraction they want to use in a fight. If you want to treat a galley as the landscape or environment where a fight is taking place, you have the rules. Spells can hit the ship's elements and hit objects like doors, walls, and stairs, and spattering surface spells can change the environment, just like a cave, manor, or forest. Alternatively, if the DM wants players to direct their ship, fire spells, and hit ballistons in a pirate ship while trying to do the same with them, the rules are in place, and treat each ship as a single object, with all the implications that come with it.

I looked in the Dark Matter supplement (for 5th Edition D & D, by Mage Hand Press) for the least common ship systems, when I noticed that all the fighter-class ships (with the exception of the Lakshayan Ashigaru frame) lacked a communication system ,

Does that mean that warships can not communicate with their allies, not even other warships? I have reviewed the book and, to my knowledge, it seems not possible for warships to do so, except for an external (pilot) radio and relay station setup.

PS. I realize that posting this question here is a shot into the dark, considering I could not even mark it properly, but I could not find any discussion about the supplement elsewhere. Please comment if you know a special forum! DS.

I personally do not think you can use Twincast there Defense bond has effects that apply to both the touched creature and the spellcaster. From the spell description (in the rules and online here):

While the target is within 60 feet of you, it receives a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws and is resistant to any damage. In addition, each time it deals damage, it suffers the same damage.

Twin spells can only cast spells targeting a single creature. From the functions of the Sorcerer class (in the basic rules and here):

To be eligible, a spell does not have to be able to hit more than one creature at the current level of the spell.

Typically, for this rule, the word "target" should be interpreted as having "an effect". For example a fireball Gemini can not be made, because even though you choose only one target (one point in space), they affect all creatures affected by the explosion. fireball is also clearly inadmissible, since the chosen target is more of a point in space than a creature, but even a spell Eismesser (targeting a single creature but then having more effects in an area) is not good.

You can protect multiple creatures at once if you have a pair of rings for each spell. #DnD

The normal reason to expect that you could not occupy Defense bond several times, if the caster was a target, there is a clause in the magic rules that says when it ends prematurely:

It also ends when the spell is cast again on one of the connected creatures.

If the caster was a target, they would end the previous spell if they cast the spell again, as they are targets of both spells.

Although Jeremy Crawford's tweets are not official decisions these days, I would expect him to say so Twincast should work too. Who knows how the material components should work in this case, as both the caster and the willing target must wear a ring for the duration. Maybe you need three or four rings (the caster may need to wear two)?

It's a bit chaotic. Personally, if I were GM and had to interpret these rules for my own table, I would not allow it Defense bond form a partnership. You probably need to ask your GM for a decision on your game.